UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #5

[Alyce]

@rightsaidfred regarding your amazing timeline, do you know if any information has been published anywhere about when CM and MG first stated when Victoria has died to be around the second week of January?

I know there was a delay, and at first they wouldn't speak to authorities. But I'm not sure if I've read anywhere any specifics of their first court appearance, and how it relates to the version they eventually provided to police.

Ie Do we know if they both gave that version separately, without the chance to confer?

Because to have come up with that prior to their arrest would seem exceptionally cunning, given the specifics of what they are accused of.

That info was given in the Podcast, by the reporters who have been attending the trial, so the detail must be from CMs statement to the police ( being as she hasn't actually given testimony yet - if she even does of course ).

After much chopping and changing, CM finally settled on the date of Wednesday January 11 as the day that Victoria died.

I will find the link again and add it here for you



Edited to add msm link


Marten gave different accounts of when the baby had been born and when she had died, the jury heard.
Eventually settling on 11 January,

Baby girl died due to negligent conduct of parents who went on run, court told

Infant carried around in ‘bag for life’ after parents went off-grid in freezing conditions, Old Bailey jurors told

www.theguardian.com

 

[Alyce]

It's true that they had weeks, even if the baby was alive until well into February.

However, the accusation of causing or allowing a baby to die (if I understand correctly) seems to relate specifically to the time while they were camping on the downs.

They are saying the baby was never alive while they were on the downs, which seems like an astute anticipation of quite a specific and key part of the charges against them.

JMO but the timing of when they say the baby died, is exactly in line, indeed just before, the timeline of the bit they are being accused was most negligent/harmful.

I am wondering when the specific charges were brought, and whether or not legal advice was given before they remembered/revealed the date of the baby passing.

I'm find this a hard thought to articulate. I hope that makes some sense.

Absolutely. I think they've both thought it through very carefully before deciding on a date of death.

MOO of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Alyce]

From the Argus live feed it looks as if the case has been adjourned until Monday.

Could be that Judge and/or Counsel have other commitments this afternoon and tomorrow

 

[rightsaidfred]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not a phrase that's used in the English legal system. Jurors are instructed that they must be "sure".

The criminal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". The civil standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities"

Standard of proof Definition | Legal Glossary | LexisNexis

Matters requiring proof must be established to the appropriate standard, namely either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.

www.lexisnexis.co.uk

There are different ways of phrasing this, such as "satisfied so that you are sure" but it amounts to the same thing, and "beyond reasonable doubt" is a common way of phrasing it.

Understanding the Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases

The standard of proof refers to the amount of evidence that's necessary and needed to prove an assertion in a trial in court. Read here to learn more.

www.bljsolicitors.co.uk

 

[Alyce]

It's a mixed bag. The Lucy Letby trial, for example was an absolute nightmare for constant delays.

But on the other hand the recent trials for Ashley Dale and Brianna Ghey's murders ran very smoothly and kept to schedule.

Agree. I haven't seen much delay in this trial so far, compared with others we've followed.

 

[Leannaf2721]

The contents of any used nappies found in/around the burnt out car could be used to determine a possible timescale of when the birth happened. If meconium (black) or yellow stools are present, this can indicate an infant is a certain number of days old. (NCT link at end of post with more information).
With regard to the time passed between Victoria's death and discovery, I would think that an entymologist could help with timings (adjusted for environmental temperature) of an "at least (x) days/weeks since deceased" estimate based on insect life cycles.
It will be interesting to see what the forensic evidence indicates.

Newborn baby poo in nappies: what to expect | Baby & toddler articles & support | NCT

Your baby's nappy can tell you a lot - find out more here.

www.nct.org.uk

I suspect that it’s likely CM is somewhat closer to the truth. I think possibly they gave birth in that cottage and they had to leave quicker than expected only they know why perhaps it was so that he could sign in Leeds who knows. I suspect sadly baby did pass at some point around the 12th as she was seen buying a small bottle of petrol. Which obv coincides with her version that she had considered cremation. I just think that video of baby in pram does not look freshly born at all, around 2 to 3 weeks old I think.

 

[Alyce]

Big thanks to all those posters who have been translating the notes - much appreciated

 

[Willowy]

Thanks!

Now I will have to go and shake my fist at the providers of that half-***ed street list I spent time with!

Also I think the street name where the PCN was issued says Borough Hill, Croydon. It's a residential street, permit parking only during the day according to Google Street view.

 

[CaptainNancy]

Absolutely. I think they've both thought it through very carefully before deciding on a date of death.

MOO of course, I could be wrong.

I am not sure that they would have had a clear memory of actual dates when they were off grid. It was said that she 'settled on'' a date - possibly relative to events that happened rather than accurate memory of days of the week / dates.

 

[Nikynoo]

Could be that Judge and/or Counsel have other commitments this afternoon and tomorrow

But wouldn’t they have said this yesterday?

 

[Alyce]

But wouldn’t they have said this yesterday?

Maybe something last minute ? a schedule changed

 

[Willowy]

I am not sure that they would have had a clear memory of actual dates when they were off grid. It was said that she 'settled on'' a date - possibly relative to events that happened rather than accurate memory of days of the week / dates.

Agree. Quite frankly from what we've seen and heard so far it seems like they lost total grip on reality, dates seemed to be the last of their concerns. They weren't capable of meeting their baby's obvious and basic needs - I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea what days events happened on. Incredibly sad to think that they perhaps didn't have any idea about how old their daughter was, and the dates she was born and died.

Also you would imagine they both felt some sort of grief at the loss of the baby? And being on the run post-partum, travelling the breadth and length of the country, living in squalid freezing conditions, must have been pretty traumatic? This could also have affected their memory of days and events.

Jmo.

 

[Cardgame]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not a phrase that's used in the English legal system. Jurors are instructed that they must be "sure".

There's no way they can be anything close to sure that Victoria froze, or suffocated, or died from any specific physical cause. The forensic report has made this clear.

The defence will try to get the case on all three harm charges kicked out, I reckon. That could well be what they're doing right now. Looks like whatever legal argument is going on now is expected to last up to two days. (This is of course speculation.)

It is possible for a judge to kick a case out before half time if he "suggests" to the CPS that they drop the charges and they refuse. Rare but it can happen.

If the harm charges fall, I kinda doubt the perversion of justice charge will stay put in sole relation to the non-registration charge. Which leaves the non-registration charge.

Wouldn't surprise me if the CPS already offered a deal to drop manslaughter for a guilty plea on one or two of the other harm charges and were politely told to go forth and multiply. If so, we may never find out. There certainly seems to be a big build-up of harm charges on the indictment, two of which carry a max sentence of life imprisonment.

I might not be understanding quite all of the legal-speak here but...

Surely the CPS have more evidence than we are so far aware of that the baby was alive when she was on the Downs?

They haven't necessarily presented it yet, but isn't there a threshold of evidence required to even bring the case to court?

It can't just be one eye witness. Or could it?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

It's true that they had weeks, even if the baby was alive until well into February.

However, the accusation of causing or allowing a baby to die (if I understand correctly) seems to relate specifically to the time while they were camping on the downs.

They are saying the baby was never alive while they were on the downs, which seems like an astute anticipation of quite a specific and key part of the charges against them.

JMO but the timing of when they say the baby died, is exactly in line, indeed just before, the timeline of the bit they are being accused was most negligent/harmful.

I am wondering when the specific charges were brought, and whether or not legal advice was given before they remembered/revealed the date of the baby passing.

I'm find this a hard thought to articulate. I hope that makes some sense.

Sorry if this has been covered already, I'm just catching up, but when CM claimed she fell asleep after not having slept for two days and then woke up with the baby dead inside her coat... where exactly, what location, was she claiming to have been asleep at during this episode? Does anyone know?

 

[Cardgame]

Sorry if this has been covered already, I'm just catching up, but when CM claimed she fell asleep after not having slept for two days and then woke up with the baby dead inside her coat... where exactly, what location, was she claiming to have been asleep at during this episode? Does anyone know?

I don't *think* we know for sure, but it is suggested that it is not long after they arrived on the South downs, the implication being they cannot and should not be found guilty of endangering the child by exposing her to hypothermic conditions.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The defence argument is, I think, going to be that she died after only 1-3 nights of camping, and that it was a terrible cot death / SIDS / co-sleeping tragedy, with the camping in cold weather being less than ideal but not the cause.

After all, people go on holiday camping with babies all the time even though tents can overheat in summer; people in Scandinavian countries leave well dressed babies outside in the snow to nap. Perhaps the argument will be that CM's body heat was adequate for survival, and that the same could easily have happened to an exhausted mother who fell asleep on the sofa in a well heated home.

If it was well argued, could I say that it was the cold and neglect that killed her beyond all reasonable doubt? We haven't heard from the pathologist yet, but I don't know if I could.

I'm sure the legal profession hasn't forgotten about the cases affected by Roy Meadow, which saw several mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their babies
Roy Meadow - Wikipedia

MOO



I agree, the pathologist's evidence will be crucial. Unfortunately they aren't half as accurate with time of death as the TV murder mysteries would have us believe - but I hope they can tell the difference between 9-11 Jan and 19 Feb.

If it can be proven in a court of law that SS and child welfare workers had already warned CM numerous times about the dangers of 'co-sleeping', when she had her previous children, would that raise the level of culpability to 'beyond reasonable doubt' as the jury know she knew better and that it could be injurious / deadly?

I'm not saying this has happened, just wondering.

JMO MOO

 

[Nikynoo]

I might not be understanding quite all of the legal-speak here but...

Surely the CPS have more evidence than we are so far aware of that the baby was alive when she was on the Downs?

They haven't necessarily presented it yet, but isn't there a threshold of evidence required to even bring the case to court?

It can't just be one eye witness. Or could it?

To some extent, I think the prosecution relied on the original witness statement of Pauline, who then changed it when she gave evidence yesterday.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I don't *think* we know for sure, but it is suggested that it is not long after they arrived on the South downs, the implication being they cannot and should not be found guilty of endangering the child by exposing her to hypothermic conditions.

Thanks for the reply. Since she claims to have slept for seemingly substantial period of time then woke up to find the baby passed away, then I would speculate this still wouldn't excuse the endangerment of such coldness. Also cannot prove baby wasn't crushed / suffocated, although pathology shows no broken bones or injuries (to what remains).

I feel like an adult could die within a few hours of falling asleep in those conditions and I know someone who had to have limbs amputated after bunking down outside after being on a bender. JMO MOO.

 

[glibby]

A few thoughts on local stuff....

Taking a taxi from Whitechapel to the Enfield Tesco makes no sense. It's a long way (45 min maybe, up to an hour), and Enfield isn't nice, nor on the way to anywhere they seemed to want to go. There's a big Sainsbury's in Whitechapel if they needed a supermarket, and several other big supermarkets in much easier reach.

Both Whitechapel and Enfield have significant populations of homeless and drug-takers. Whitechapel, more street people/street dealers. Enfield, more drug houses, and some of the bigger dealer operations probably have supply centres up there I would say. Maybe one way to describe the Whitechapel/Enfield relationship, drugwise, would be retail/wholesale.

If they were familiar with east london and had engaged with social services/homeless support etc in the past, I'm not surprised they went to whitechapel. It's a bit of a hub for support services, there's a big hospital there, several hostels and shelters etc. So if they were considering trying to find a bed, that would be a good choice, and likely known to them. Alternatively, they would also know the street homeless population would help them blend in.

However, the trip to Enfield makes me suspicious, given the main link I can think of between the two locations. As do the 30 phones.

 

[OliverK]

A few thoughts on local stuff....

Taking a taxi from Whitechapel to the Enfield Tesco makes no sense. It's a long way (45 min maybe, up to an hour), and Enfield isn't nice, nor on the way to anywhere they seemed to want to go. There's a big Sainsbury's in Whitechapel if they needed a supermarket, and several other big supermarkets in much easier reach.

Both Whitechapel and Enfield have significant populations of homeless and drug-takers. Whitechapel, more street people/street dealers. Enfield, more drug houses, and some of the bigger dealer operations probably have supply centres up there I would say. Maybe one way to describe the Whitechapel/Enfield relationship, drugwise, would be retail/wholesale.

If they were familiar with east london and had engaged with social services/homeless support etc in the past, I'm not surprised they went to whitechapel. It's a bit of a hub for support services, there's a big hospital there, several hostels and shelters etc. So if they were considering trying to find a bed, that would be a good choice, and likely known to them. Alternatively, they would also know the street homeless population would help them blend in.

However, the trip to Enfield makes me suspicious, given the main link I can think of between the two locations. As do the 30 phones.

What does it make you suspicious of? Something to do with illegal drugs and organised crime, I'm guessing.

I think their mistake was not leaving the country earlier, at say 32 weeks into the pregnancy at the latest, allowing for premature birth and other snafus. Or 28 to allow time to settle, at least after a fashion. The biggest issue? Almost certainly money. See the condition of the car.

Even on 19 December the police in Sheffield were recording she might be pregnant, which rather than her accompanying him to the station and an officer thinking "The female appeared on visual assessment to be in somewhat of a pregnant state" is probably a Sino-whispered form of "There was already a watch out".

Why haven't the police or CPS (if indeed it's their side that's leaking the photos - I'm not wholly convinced it's not the defence) handed the PA a photo of the 30 phones? Instead we get photos including ones of nappies, a dressing gown, some sanitary pads, a bag of jewellery, and a LEZ fine doc showing CM's address.